Evolution is biology, not physics

[Matthewj1985]

Just finished up a youtube video from Donexodus2 where he addresses a problem I see a lot. I have seen more than my fair share of creationist who will state that evolution is false and then either attack the theories of abiogenesis or the big bang. Whit had a great analogy in his video I thought I would share here.

He asks why people feel that they are qualified to debate scientific theories like this while they are so ignorant (ignorant does NOT mean stupid, I am ignorant of a GREAT many things) that they don't even undertand the difference between biology and physics.

He states that he would not debate someone about WWII if they didn't know the difference between the Japenese and the Chinese.

What do you think, good analogy?

 

[juvenissun]

Landform Evolution is a legitimate geology course. May be you like to write something to oppose it. I strongly encourage you to do that.

 

[Smidlee]

Since a protein's shape are very important in biology and it's shape has a lot to do with physics then biologist can not completely ignore physics.

 

[BobW188]

No dispute as to your central contention; but since some evolutionists use the theory to argue that there is no God, I think it's a proper counterergument to go from the earthly to the cosmic. I can stipulate that life on earth has followed what to all appearances is a random evolutionary process; and still contend that the larger universe was created. (Why I would attack Big Bang in so doing eludes me.)

Darwin, after all, wrote about the origin of species, not the origin of everything.

 

[timbo81]

you don't have to have a PhD in an area to have an opinion

Richard Dawkins has no formal degree in any religious field, yet is apparently able to right books to disprove all religions, never mind theologians who have studied religious texts for centuries.

Should I just accept something because someone smarter than me tells me I should?

 

[Drekkan85]

No dispute as to your central contention; but since some evolutionists use the theory to argue that there is no God, I think it's a proper counterergument to go from the earthly to the cosmic. I can stipulate that life on earth has followed what to all appearances is a random evolutionary process; and still contend that the larger universe was created. (Why I would attack Big Bang in so doing eludes me.)

Darwin, after all, wrote about the origin of species, not the origin of everything.

But that's DonExodus's point - he like many of us is a Theistic Evolutionist. What is being taught, or at least the curriculum as stands in many State and National standards, is one of teaching the process/mechanism without stating to the kids one way or another about whether it's a theistic/atheistic mechanism.

The problem comes when debating/discussing/teaching evolution and the matter becomes a case of arguing abiogenesis/cosmic formation - which is a debate in and of itself (and one that really isn't all that heavily taught in schools).

 

[gluadys]

Should I just accept something because someone smarter than me tells me I should?

If you agree he is smarter than you, that's an indication to check out what he is saying. In the long run you may still disagree, but in the meantime you will have become as smart as him.

 

[timbo81]

If you agree he is smarter than you, that's an indication to check out what he is saying. In the long run you may still disagree, but in the meantime you will have become as smart as him.

in one area yes.

I'm sure i'd beat him in a Bible quiz so....